Sunday, March 30, 2014

Most Colorado sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun-control laws they consider unenforceable, saying they will not treat every citizen like a felon and won’t change their plans even if a federal judge rules against them.
Fifty-five of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs are in agreement on refusing to enforce the law. Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said the new rules on magazine capacity and other issues make it impossible for authorities to make arrests even if they wanted to.
“They’ve turned law-abiding citizens into criminals,” Cooke said. “They banned magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and what they’ve said is that any magazine that can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds is illegal. Well, that’s 99.999 percent of all magazines. They have a base plate and a spring that you can remove to repair or clean. If you can do that, then that magazine is illegal to possess after Jan. 1, and you can’t buy any. How do we enforce that?
“There’s a grandfather clause in the law that says if you own a magazine before July 1, 2013, that’s more than 15 rounds, you’re allowed to keep it. How are my deputies going to know who bought that magazine before or after July 1? So we’re not putting any resources into it or making it a priority,” he said.

Most Colorado sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun-control laws they consider unenforceable, saying they will not treat every citizen like a felon and won’t change their plans even if a federal judge rules against them.
Fifty-five of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs are in agreement on refusing to enforce the law. Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said the new rules on magazine capacity and other issues make it impossible for authorities to make arrests even if they wanted to.
“They’ve turned law-abiding citizens into criminals,” Cooke said. “They banned magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and what they’ve said is that any magazine that can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds is illegal. Well, that’s 99.999 percent of all magazines. They have a base plate and a spring that you can remove to repair or clean. If you can do that, then that magazine is illegal to possess after Jan. 1, and you can’t buy any. How do we enforce that?
“There’s a grandfather clause in the law that says if you own a magazine before July 1, 2013, that’s more than 15 rounds, you’re allowed to keep it. How are my deputies going to know who bought that magazine before or after July 1? So we’re not putting any resources into it or making it a priority,” he said.Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Weld County Sheriff John Cooke below:

Most Colorado sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun-control laws they consider unenforceable, saying they will not treat every citizen like a felon and won’t change their plans even if a federal judge rules against them.
Fifty-five of Colorado’s 62 sheriffs are in agreement on refusing to enforce the law. Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said the new rules on magazine capacity and other issues make it impossible for authorities to make arrests even if they wanted to.
"They’ve turned law-abiding citizens into criminals," Cooke said. "They banned magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and what they’ve said is that any magazine that can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds is illegal. Well, that’s 99.999 percent of all magazines. They have a base plate and a spring that you can remove to repair or clean. If you can do that, then that magazine is illegal to possess after Jan. 1, and you can’t buy any. How do we enforce that?
"There’s a grandfather clause in the law that says if you own a magazine before July 1, 2013, that’s more than 15 rounds, you’re allowed to keep it. How are my deputies going to know who bought that magazine before or after July 1? So we’re not putting any resources into it or making it a priority," he said.Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Weld County Sheriff John Cooke below:

Given how easy it is to work around the 15-round magazine limit, does Cooke believe lawmakers are looking for a de facto ban on magazines, or that they just have no idea what they’re talking about?
“They don’t understand how it works because the legislator that introduced this bill, she didn’t come to the sheriffs and say, ‘Explain to me what a magazine is,’ because she didn’t even know. Then after the bill gets passed she was confronted on how a magazine could be converted, and she said, ‘Oh, people will just have to live with it,’” Cooke said.
He said gun-control advocates at the federal level are no more knowledgeable on the issue, and he cited Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., as a prime example.

The enforcement battle is now headed to federal court, thanks to a suit filed by the sheriffs on behalf of law enforcement and the public.
“Most law-enforcement agencies in this state don’t really understand how to enforce this, and the people don’t know how to comply with this. So we actually filed a lawsuit. Fifty-five out of the 62 elected sheriffs filed a lawsuit in federal district court against these laws because we’re saying it violates people’s due process. If somebody doesn’t know that they’re violating the law, how can they be held accountable? And that’s a violation of due process,” he said.
The sheriff said his attorney is confident of a win in court, but Cooke insisted he isn’t planning to change anything if the verdict goes against him.
“Even the federal courts can’t make me enforce the laws. So if we lose and the judge says, ‘No, these laws are constitutional,’ I still set the priorities and the resources for my agency. There’s no law in the state of Colorado that says I have to enforce the law, so I still won’t enforce them because in my belief and my opinion, it’s not my job to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals,” Cooke said.
From Columbine to the Aurora movie theater shooting, Colorado has seen more than its share of tragedies, but Cooke said gun-control groups are learning the wrong lessons.
“They’re addressing the wrong issue. It’s the gun that’s being used, but that’s an inanimate object. The problem is not the guns; it’s the hearts of man, and that’s where the issue is,” said Cooke, who advocated a collaborative approach to making sure the mentally ill don’t get access to guns.
Sheriff Cooke also rejects the argument that gun use is best left to law-enforcement professionals like him.
“An armed society is a polite society. If you ask a majority of cops on the street, they’ll you the way to reduce the number of victims of these mass shootings is to have a well-armed public that can shoot back and kill these people and neutralize them before they kill too many,” he said.
Cooke said an armed society was a great help to him and other sheriffs who invoked posse comitatus just months ago to maintain order while officials dealt with devastating floods.
“We had a lot of floods and fires this year, and the sheriffs said we need an armed populous to help guard their communities and their neighbors,” he said. “They could be a benefit to us to stop looting and to stop any riots or that sort of thing.”

In 1984, the US reported 40 million illegal aliens among the population. Since then those numbers have "dwindled" to a mere 11 million. Where did all the people go? You already know how to lose a guy in 10 days, but listen to this to find out how to lose more than a boat load of aliens in just a few decades. Forget Waldo, where's Mohammed?

American Christians and patriots know that a battle is brewing. It is a battle for the heart and soul of our nation. Since the election of Barack Obama its temperature has reached an all-time high. The battleground is spiritual, political, and even physical-and the grand finale is coming soon to a street corner near you.
As history bears out, God does not use bigger church buildings, cool songs with lights and big drums, or elaborate productions to deliver nations from the jaws of tyranny. He does it by first destroying the corrupt political systems that oppress the people, then bringing about a spiritual awakening in the people, and finally bringing liberty to the people.
History is about to repeat itself once again in America.
Using scripture and current events, In Defense of a Nation frames the coming battle in a way that will cause you to lose sleep. It examines such questions as these:
• Is America a lucky anomaly in human history, or is it a deliberate act of God?• Who is America in the Bible?• Is God finished with America?• What will the inevitable clash between Islam and Communism vs. America and the Jewish State of Israel look like?• When will it occur?• What is the beast system of the Bible, and who is the son of perdition?• Who is the community organizer in Scripture that carried the anti-Christ messages of social justice and redistribution of wealth?• Who will promote these same messages in the last days, and how will they be used against America?
America's toughest days are just ahead, but so is our crowning moment in history. You have come to the Kingdom for such a time as this. Now, make it count.

Non-Compliance: I Will not Comply

Non-Compliance: I Will not ComplyMy Non-Compliance is not Disobedience
Commentary by George Rogers Clark, January 13, 2013 (updated 2014)μολὼν λαβέ My non-compliance is obedience to God. It may require disobedience to “the man.”It is overt non-compliance. I will not comply. It is time for a stand. “The man” who sits in the Oval Office may try again to do an executive order to infringe on my God-given responsibility to keep and bear arms. I will remain in non-compliance. μολὼν λαβέWhat does it mean? It is Greek. In English, it is Molon Labe. It means, “come and take.” If you want my Weapons, my Declaration of Independence, or my Constitution, come and take them from my cold, dead hands.To keep and bear arms is a “right” under the 2nd Amendment. I am indeed concerned about my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. However, man’s law is secondary to God’s law, even in modern America. God considers it my responsibility to protect my family, property and my fellow man. I do not belong to some weird cult. It is in the Bible. As a Christian, I must take God’s Word seriously. He says it is also your responsibility. He is God. You are man. It is your responsibility to be armed and to protect those in your care. Non-compliance is serious. However, I will not comply. Mark Alexander, the Publisher of the Patriot Post started this non-compliance movement. He wrote a moving essay as a statement. He said, “I will not comply.” I believe this act of non-compliance is a just cause. Here is more on my perspective. My non-compliance is based on their requirement to disobey God in order to comply with “the man.” Obama and his silly crew can produce any order, edict, law, or senate backed decision they want. I will obey God on this matter. Non-compliance is my stand. It is time to share my references. Then I will expand on the idea. My purpose is to challenge you. The Bible and my friend Ted Weiland are my sources. The Bible is Ted’s source too, of course. He has written extensively on this subject. That made my job here easier. 1) Reason for non-compliance:Let the high praises of God be in their mouth and a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honor have all his saints. Praise Ye Yahweh. -Psalm 149:6-92) Reason for non-compliance:If the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. -Matthew 24:433) Reason for non-compliance:Then said he unto them, he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one. -Luke 22:364) Reason for non-compliance:… if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. -1Timothy 5:85) Reason for non-compliance:“Disconcerting as many people may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee; it is even more disturbing that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise.” –Ted Weiland6) Reason for non-compliance:“If the responsibility to keep and bear arms is God-given, no one except Yahweh himself has the right to withdraw it. If you are a Christian, and particularly if you are the head of your home, you were given the responsibility to keep and bear arms long before the United States Constitution was framed or ratified.” –Ted Weiland7) Reason for non-compliance: “Jesus’ command agrees with Psalm 149:6-9. Note that Jesus did not tell his disciples to register their swords with the government.” –Ted Weiland8) Reason for non-compliance: “Why do Christian men think they need the state to sanction self-defense or any other God-given responsibility? What Yahweh ordained and commanded does not require the state’s permission or license. If Yahweh’s commands need to be authorized or licensed by the state, then Yahweh becomes subservient to the state.” –Ted Weiland9) Reason for non-compliance: “After first providing for your family’s spiritual safety, your next priority should be providing for your family’s physical protection. Providing food, clothing, and shelter is of little benefit if you are unprepared or unwilling to defend your family against thieves, rapists and murderers. It is not unchristian to practice self-defense. It is unchristian if you do not.” –Ted Weiland10) Reason for non-compliance:“By employing the term assault weapons, the anti-gun lobby associates all gun owners with criminal intent. Yet, the vast majorities of gun owners are not criminals and have no intentions of assaulting anyone. They do not own assault weapons; instead, they have armed themselves with defense weapons.” –Ted WeilandThe question now is this: Will non-compliance make me guilty and punishable under the law? That depends on whether or not “the man” issues an executive order, edict, or whatever in violation of the Constitution. Remember this: Any action on the part of the Executive to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms must come with an Amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional. There is NO WAY the people will support a Constitutional Convention to alter their right to “Keep and Bear.” However, remember what Mr. Weiland said. If man’s law is granting the right, then it can be made void by man. That is why my declaration of non-compliance is based on God’s law.Will being right with God’s law protect me from prosecution for non-compliance? The secular world we live in pretty much ignores God’s law. Abortion on a scale of infanticide is an example. We all know God judges it as evil. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court allows it. Where do you stand? God has created us with free will. We can choose to obey man and disobey God, or vice versa. “The man” in the Oval Office will spin it artfully. It will make his “Utopian Dream” followers swoon. They will say the man is doing something about those terrible “assault weapons.” However, you are not a fool. You know that Utopia is beyond man’s grasp. You know that if we are faithful and obedient, the Lord will deliver us to His Utopia, in His time. You know the Utopian Dreamers and their god will lead us to an apocalypse, if we let them. Perhaps you should say it too. Go ahead; say it, “I will not comply.” There; you look like a patriot and a saint in your cloak of non-compliance. Attributions: Special thanks to Ted Weiland for: “Firearms Scripturally Defended” and “Bible Law vs. U.S. Constitution”Thanks also to Mark Alexander, “Assault on the 2nd Amendment, I Will not Comply” http://patriotpost.us/alexander/16224Have you subscribed to Our Daily Tea? We will send emails about content updates. We never share or sell email addresses.Click Here To Subscribe

Institutionalized Tyranny by Chuck Baldwin, March 27, 2014

What happens when an institution becomes more important than the cause for
which the institution was formed? How long should people who believe in the
cause remain loyal to such an institution?And at what point does loyalty to
such an institution comprise an abandonment of the cause itself?I’m afraid the majority of Americans have been institutionalized in a manner
not unlike the way prisoners are institutionalized after a long period of
confinement. After a point, a prisoner is so conditioned to accepting the
circumstances of his confinement that, should he be released from confinement,
he truly would be unable to cope. Such seems to be the mentality of a majority
of us today.

Christians have been institutionalized. The reason and purpose of the church
or Christian organization is no longer relevant. Generations have grown up
reciting the same liturgies, regurgitating the same prayers, and rehearsing the
same programs until the reason for it all doesn’t even matter. But take the
institution away from them, and they would not be able to cope.

The Pharisees despised the Lord Jesus because He challenged the religious
institutions that had come to govern people’s lives. I am convinced if Jesus
came to America today, He would be just as despised by the vast majority of our
religious leaders as He was by the Pharisees.

The Church that Jesus built in the Book of Acts owned no buildings, was
indebted to no lenders, took no tax benefits from the civil government, had no
denominational hierarchy, and identified itself with no ecclesiastical brand.
And the Church was just as persecuted by the religious establishment as Christ
was.

One of the reasons one may know that the modern church is so unlike Christ
and the apostles is by the persecution that it never experiences. Just as the
Pharisees were bosom buddies with the Roman Empire’s governing elite, so are our
religious leaders today. Caesar was very generous in sharing the fruit of his
tyrannically-extracted bounty with his allies in the Jewish Sanhedrin. And they
were happy to return the favor by insisting that the Hebrew people submit to
Caesar’s harsh rule over their lives.

The Pharisees also enjoyed a cozy relationship with the moneychangers. The
moneychangers were descended from a long line of corrupt banking interests that
dated all the way back to the Edomites. We are not talking about your friendly
local banker here. These were highly organized, well-positioned
money-manipulators. Jesus was so incensed with their manipulation and theft
within in the Temple that he used physical violence to remove them from the
property. He is recorded as doing this twice in the Gospel narratives. Note that
after the second time in which it is recorded that He drove out the
moneychangers (with a whip, no less), the Pharisees soon had Jesus crucified.
There is no question that one of the reasons Pilate ordered Jesus to be scourged
with a whip was in direct retaliation for the manner in which Jesus whipped the
moneychangers. Remember, the moneychangers were from a very well-ensconced,
elitist national (and even international) organization.And lest you think all of this is irrelevant to today, the moneychangers are
still very much with us. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and other members of the
international banking elite, are the direct descendants of the moneychangers of
Jesus’ day. And if you ever have an opportunity to ask one of them about it,
they will proudly admit it.

Yes, the Pharisees institutionalized religion. This accomplished two things:
1) it helped enslave the people, 2) it helped make them rich. The
institutionalized church is accomplishing much the same things today.

The establishment church is doing as much to enslave people as any other
institution in the world. Our political institutions and educational
institutions have nothing on the church for making good little subjects and
serfs to the all-powerful state. And if you don’t think that a host of church
leaders are not reaping the spoils from assisting our taskmasters, you’re not
paying attention.

Many, if not most, of these big-name TV evangelists have as many houses and
yachts and Swiss bank accounts as any big-name Hollywood actor or politician. In
some cases, more. Most of these big-church pastors are bathing in luxury. Many
of them take the kinds of vacations that only CEOs of the biggest corporations
or presidents could afford. Do you really think that the IRS rules and
regulations governing these non-profit corporations, called churches, really
bother these church leaders? Get real!

No wonder all of these “successful” preachers are constantly teaching their
congregations to always submit to the government. No wonder they have no
interest in abandoning their 501c3 tax-exempt status. They are in the exact same
position as were the Pharisees of old. And they are just as effective in helping
to enslave people today as were the Pharisees.

The institution of the church--along with its programs, formalities,
buildings, rituals, etc.,--has become more important than the purpose for which
the church was created. Instead of preaching the liberating message of the
Cross, which frees men from the fetters of sin--and that includes sinful
political and financial fetters--the church is preaching a message of
subjugation and enslavement. It is teaching people to submit to all kinds of
oppression, including religious oppression.

Some of the most oppressed and subjugated people in the world are religious
people.There are churches and Christian colleges that are every bit as
tyrannical as anything coming out of East-bloc or Muslim countries. About the
only thing missing is physical torture and execution. Spiritually, however, the
oppression is the same.

How could real men who love the liberty they have in Christ allow
themselves--and especially their wives--to be told how to dress, how to wear
their hair, what kind of music to listen to, what kind of vacations to take,
what restaurants they may or may not eat at, what forms of entertainment they
may or may not participate in, etc., etc., ad infinitum?

I tell you the truth: many Christians in America are already slaves.To talk
to them about freedom is a complete waste of time. The chains of tyranny are
already clamped around their hearts. Why should it matter to them if chains are
clamped around their necks? When they talk about “defending the faith,” they are
talking about defending the institution. They are slaves to the institution. And
the same is true for many unchurched Americans.

What is more important: liberty, or the government that is supposed to secure
liberty? To a sizeable number of Americans today, it is more important to
preserve the institution than the freedoms that the institution was created to
protect.

Our Declaration of Independence states, “That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends [the God-given rights of life, liberty, etc.],
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.”

Did you see that: “any form of government”? ANY FORM. The form of government
is only as good as its ability to secure liberty.

I hear a lot of politicians and media personalities talking about “American
exceptionalism.” This is a potentially dangerous mindset. If one means that
America is exceptional in our history and the manner in which our Constitution
and Bill of Rights were established to protect liberty, well and good. But if it
means that America has carte-blanche to do anything it wants--no matter how
unconstitutional or tyrannical--because it is “exceptional,” it is a bunch of
hooey.

What difference does it make if we have a 50-State Union or not? There is a
bill in the California legislature that would divide that State into six states.
Five counties in Western Maryland are trying to secede from Baltimore. Ten
northern counties in Colorado are trying to secede from Denver. If a State
refuses to secure the liberties of the people of that State, they have every
right under God to separate. The State is not nearly as important as the
liberties of the people within the State.

The spirit of secession is actually growing like wildfire all over the world.
In recent history, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and
Kosovo all separated from Yugoslavia. Transnistria broke free from Moldova.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought free from Georgia. The Slovaks seceded from
Czechoslovakia. And now Crimea is separating from Ukraine.

To be sure, not every country that secedes from another country is motivated
purely by the love of liberty. But for those of us in America, the issue that
has propelled the desire to separate from one country or one State has always
been liberty. It was the love of liberty that created the United States and that
created the free and independent states of Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, and West
Virginia--all of which seceded from existing U.S. states.

Furthermore, what difference does it make if Washington, D.C., is our federal
capital, or, if say, Helena, Montana, would become the federal capital of a
mountain state confederation of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Northern Colorado,
eastern Washington and Oregon, the Dakotas, Alberta and British Columbia,
Canada, and Alaska? Or if Austin was the federal capital of an independent
Republic of Texas? Preserving some sort of political union (especially if it is
a forced and coerced union) is not nearly as important as preserving
liberty.

Again, it is not the political institution that is important. What is
important is the liberty that the political institution is supposed to
secure.

Many great minds in this country are already philosophizing over the
possibility that secession is an idea whose time has come--again. A few years
ago, Walter Williams wrote, “Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there
are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and
those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just
as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted
to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional
abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

“Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and
risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human
rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences
by separating.That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and
Louisiana, control their legislatures and then issue a unilateral declaration of
independence just as the Founders did in 1776. You say, ‘Williams, nobody has to
go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right
person.’ That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or
natural right.

“Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with
England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need
not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia
(1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession
can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have
fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and
Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally, and have strong economic ties
with United States.

“The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue
trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?”

In the eyes of God, marriage is the most sacred of all unions. It is far more
sacred than any political union. If our Creator has authorized the separation of
a husband and wife under certain circumstances in which one party violated the
sacred terms of the holy contract (and He has), who among us has the audacity to
say that political unions may not be abandoned when government commits political
adultery by forsaking its oath to the people?

Again, are we more interested in preserving an institution or the liberty
that the institution is supposed to secure?

As an institution, the Church at large is apostate.Yet, millions of
Christians continue to prop up an institution that has abandoned the purpose for
which it was created. They are more interested in preserving the forms and
liturgies and tapestries and buildings of the institution. And, all the while,
they are being spiritually enslaved by the very institution they are helping to
prop up.

And as an institution, the U.S. federal government is apostate. Yet, millions
of citizens continue to make excuses for it, justify it, and condone it. They
are more interested in preserving the agencies and entities and power of the
institution. Yet, all the while, they are being enslaved by the very institution
they are helping to prop up.

What happens when an institution becomes more important than the cause for
which the institution was formed? When the institution is civil government and
the cause is liberty, tyranny is what happens.
(c) Chuck Baldwin

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

http://personalliberty.com/2014/03/24/sheriffs-urge-non-compliance-for-unconstitutional-gun-laws/This article, written by Bruce Parker, appeared on Watchdog.org on March 24.
The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont’s law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago.
“Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances,” said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. “We’re seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Governor Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?”
On March 4, Burlington voters joined a push by elected officials throughout northeastern States to enact stiffer gun control measures. By a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.
“It’s astonishing that people are so cavalier about violating the Second Amendment,” Mack said. “Burlington City Council sounds like they are just following the trend to do things that are entirely unconstitutional and go around sheriffs, and go around the laws, or subvert the laws, or disobey the laws.”
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which touts sheriffs as the highest law enforcement officials charged with defending the rights of citizens in states, claims that 17 police associations and nearly 500 sheriffs nationwide have pledged to defy unConstitutional gun control measures.
The thought that Vermont’s top law officers might publicly oppose gun restrictions isn’t a novel idea. Sheriffs in Colorado are refusing to enforce that state’s new background checks and ban on high-capacity magazines. In Connecticut, tens of thousands of residents are refusing to comply with a new State law that requires registration of guns and high-capacity magazines. In Saratoga Springs, N.Y., citizens publicly protested the state’s new SAFE Act last week by burning a thousand gun registration forms.
In Vermont, hundreds – some blazoned in orange hunting attire and hoisting the Gadsden Flag – rallied at the state Capitol to urge the Legislature to uphold Vermont’s strong 2nd Amendment gun laws, among the most robust in the Nation.
When asked if Vermonters might follow the citizens of neighboring States and refuse to comply with gun control ordinances, Bill Moore, a policy analyst at the Vermont Traditions Coalition, predicted that noncompliance would be “highly likely and widespread.”
A standoff between Burlington and Vermont gun owners may be a ways off, however. According to Moore, Burlington’s ordinances are largely symbolic because they violate Vermont’s “Sportsmen’s Bill of Rights,” a State law that prohibits municipalities from enacting their own gun laws.
“These ordinances, as the anti-gunners will admit, are intentionally and specifically meant to challenge the Gun Owners’ Bill of Rights and Vermont’s current constitutional protections,” Moore told Watchdog.
According to Moore, the Burlington City Council advanced the measures to create an opportunity for the Legislature to revise Vermont’s strong Second Amendment protections — an outcome that he said is “not highly likely.”
Burlington councilman Paul Decelles, one of the few officials to vote against the proposed changes to the city charter, echoed that sentiment.
“I think every single one of the councilors recognized that this is never going to pass the state test, but they pushed this along to have a broader discussion at the State level. I don’t think any one of them thinks this is actually going to be upheld,” Decelles told Watchdog.
The mayor of Burlington may disagree. Before the March 4 vote, Mayor Miro Weinberger issued a statement on the mayor’s office website saying he supported “charter changes focused on protecting Burlington children, domestic violence victims, and law enforcement officers.”
Weinberger has been an outspoken member of Michael Bloomberg’s national coalition of pro-gun-control mayors, which advocates for local gun control in the name of safety, but whose members have fled recently due to revelations the organization wants nationwide gun confiscation.
Mack said the mayor’s gun control advocacy contradicts both the U.S. Constitution and recent case law.
“Another thing the mayor of Burlington needs to ask himself is, do the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald mean anything at all, that people have the right to keep and bear arms? Does the Second Amendment mean anything, or are you allowed to act as if it doesn’t exist just because you don’t agree with the law?”
Despite opponents’ views the ordinances are illegal, it remains unclear what would happen if Burlington’s measures gain traction at the Legislature.
“I know our chief of police very well, and I know many cops in Burlington, and they would never walk into somebody’s house and demand to see guns,” Decelles said. “They would never do these things. They are more concerned about real crime.”

Thursday, March 20, 2014

/
I am concerned about the loss of our freedoms and privacy in North Idaho. The more I learn about the Affordable Care Act, state land rights and education issues, the more I realize how much work needs to be done to preserve the freedoms of district and state. After many prayers and family discussions, I have decided to step forward as a citizen and run for the office of Idaho House of Representative District 1A. We all need to work together to reduce big government at both the state and federal levels. Idaho families and businesses should be directing government and dictating policy to elected officials, not the other way around.
I am frustrated when I see big government rob Idaho families, while watching our current incumbent make decisions that support this same big government. My opponent supported ObamaCare by voting to set up the Idaho State Health Care Exchange which will directly impact families and business throughout Idaho. In 2012, my opponent was ranked as one of the top “Big Spenders” by the Idaho Freedom Foundation. The layout of our large district and the cost to campaign in this area have allowed him easy victories in the last several elections.
I would like to offer the residents of District 1 a choice to elect a representative who is willing to find common sense solutions to problems, not grow large bureaucracies.
If elected, my plan of action is to:

Support efforts to repeal the State Health Care Exchange and prevent Medicaid Expansion in Idaho

Support legislation to transfer federal lands back to the State of Idaho.

Promote local control for education in our schools.

Strengthen private property rights

Work to insure Idaho citizens maintain their privacy from government data collection.

Promote and preserve our 2nd Amendment rights.

Promote statewide legislation for term limits to remove career politicians.

I will listen to all issues affecting North Idaho families and businesses and will diligently work to preserve your freedoms. I will be a fresh firm voice in Boise for all residents of District 1.
I need the voters of District 1 to step forward and join with my family and friends in a united volunteer force to defeat the current career incumbent. I humbly invite you to get involved in my campaign and help make a difference. If the citizens of Idaho want government to do less, we must do more to be heard! As important as who your candidate is, it is equally important that you, the voter, participate in the primary election on May 20th, 2014 and get involved locally. Thank you for joining me and I encourage you to visit the rest of my website to learn more about me.

This column is archived here.
Unfortunately,
a vast number of people who are charged with protecting our liberties are often
the ones who are engaged in trying to take those liberties away. And the right
to keep and bear arms must be regarded as one of the most important (if not THE
most important) liberties deserving protection. Without the people’s right to
keep and bear arms, all of the rest of the laws protecting our liberties are
only words on a piece of paper. It is the armed citizenry that protects every
liberty we cherish.
Obviously, every lawmaker (at any level) takes an oath to support, protect,
and defend the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the number of lawmakers who routinely do
everything in their power to restrict or deny the people’s constitutional right
to keep and bear arms is quite large--especially on America’s east and west
coasts. Thankfully, over the past several years, lawmakers from gun-friendly
states have been able fend off the attacks against our Second Amendment
liberties. And lawmakers in “The Constitution State” are learning that the
freedom-loving people of Connecticut are not going to be bullied out of their
constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
According to several published
reports, only about 15% of the gun owners in Connecticut have complied with the
State’s new law requiring them to either relinquish or register (for future
confiscation) their semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. So, what
will the State of Connecticut do now? To not comply with the new State law is a
felony. Will the State of Connecticut seek to incarcerate hundreds of thousands
of its citizens for failure to comply with the new gun ban? I would dare say
that, if this happened, fellow citizens from all over America would descend on
Connecticut to defend their fellow gun owners in a way not dissimilar from the
gathering at the Concord Bridge in Massachusetts back in 1775. Does the State
of Connecticut really want to start another American Revolution? We’ll see.Obviously, the majority of lawmakers in the State of Connecticut have
abandoned their oath to the Constitution and have become the instrument of those
forces that would take away the people’s liberties. The same could be said for
lawmakers in states such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and
California.
But it is not only lawmakers who are guilty of breaking their
oaths to the Constitution and who are working against the people’s right to keep
and bear arms. It is an absolute fact that the vast majority of the mainstream
media is vehemently anti-gun. The bias of the national media on this subject is
documented beyond question. From sportscasters such as Bob Costas to talking
heads such as Joe Scarborough to the vast majority of newscasters, commentators,
editors, and pundits at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, ad infinitum, the barrage of
attacks against the Second Amendment is ubiquitous.
Unfortunately, lawmakers and media personnel are not the only ones promoting
an anti-Second Amendment position. Many physicians, police officers, and pastors
often raise their power and influence against the sacred duty of armed
self-defense, as well.For example, Dr. Ben Carson, a man that I personally
respect and admire for many reasons, has raised his voice against the right of
people to keep and bear arms. When asked by Glenn Beck if people should be
allowed to own semi-automatic rifles, Dr. Carson replied, “It depends on where
you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid
that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy
person, I would rather you not have it.”
See the report here:Dr.
Benjamin Carson On Gun Control: "It Depends On Where You Live"Obviously, that means Dr. Carson would prefer to disarm everyone who lives
“in the midst of a lot of people,” meaning any big city. If you add up the
combined populations of the major cities in this country, it would total the
vast majority of the U.S. population. Many major cities in America already have
very strict gun control laws, which only serve to endanger the law-abiding
citizens living in those cities. The fact is if anyone needs the right to keep
AND BEAR arms, it is people who live in big cities. Violent crime rates
absolutely prove it.Now, Ben Carson the individual has the right to his
opinion; but many people are touting Carson’s name as a potential presidential
candidate in 2016. For a president (America’s Chief Executive charged with
executing our laws, including the Second Amendment) to say, “I would rather you
not have [a semi-automatic rifle]” is not acceptable--not in any shape, manner,
or form.
Unfortunately, Dr. Carson is not the only physician who thinks this way. The
American Medical Association (AMA) has a long history of advocating for gun
control. See their official position supporting gun control here:AMA
Violence Prevention
Fortunately, the AMA does not speak for all physicians. The Association of
American Physicians And Surgeons (AAPS) is very supportive of the Second
Amendment--along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. I encourage readers to
speak with their doctors about joining the AAPS. The current president of AAPS
is Dr. Tom Kendall, Sr. He is a personal friend of mine. Here is the
association’s website:AAPS
President Obama’s pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is also a
high-profile anti-Second Amendment crusader. Even the liberal Mail Online news
site rightly points out Murthy’s anti-gun activism. See the report here:Revealed:
Obama's Controversial Pick For Surgeon General Adopted His Anti-Gun Stance By
Watching Violent CartoonsU.S Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is mounting a campaign to deny Dr. Murthy the
position of U.S. Surgeon General. I encourage readers to support Senator Paul’s
campaign. See this report:Sen.
Paul To Fight Obama's Surgeon General PickSadly, physicians are not the only ones advocating for gun control; many
police officers feel the same way. The State Police spokesman for Connecticut,
Lt. Paul Vance, shouted over the phone at a citizen who had called to question
how law enforcement personnel in Connecticut were going to enforce the
newly-enacted gun ban by screaming, “I don’t want to talk about the
Constitution, Ma’am, at all, at all.” When reminded by the caller that police
officers were servants of the people, the lieutenant yelled, “I’m the master,
Ma’am, I’m the master.”See the report here:Gun-Grabbing
Cop Goes Ballistic: "I'm The Master!"
It is an unfortunate reality that
the attitude depicted by Lt. Vance is shared by thousands of police officers
throughout the nation. The “us-versus-them” mentality seems to permeate law
enforcement. And, of course, the “them” in question is the citizenry that
policemen are supposed to serve. Examples of Gestapo-like tactics being employed
by various police personnel are growing like wildfire. If you are not afraid to
be illuminated by the truth, I challenge you to Google “police abuse” and see
what comes up. But I caution you: what you will discover will shock and anger
you.
More and more innocent people are being shot and killed by trigger-happy cops
who have seemingly adopted a “shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later” philosophy.
It is to the point that the American people need to seriously begin lobbying
lawmakers and judges to severely restrict “no knock” arrest warrants and to
begin severely punishing these rogue, out-of-control policemen. If something
isn’t done quickly, what is now rogue behavior will soon morph into routine
behavior.And, of course, I haven’t even addressed the militarization of most
all of America’s law enforcement agencies, including county and municipal police
agencies. More and more, our policemen and sheriff’s deputies are looking like
soldiers, not peace officers.
Not all of our policemen share this anti-Second Amendment, us-versus-them,
“I’m the master” mentality. Thank God! Lawmen in states that heavily support the
right of the people to keep and bear arms are mostly very gun-friendly. However,
in larger cities and in states that are less gun-friendly, the trend in law
enforcement is ominous.Finally, another group of leaders who should be among
the most supportive voices of our Bill of Rights, including the Second
Amendment, is America’s pastors. And, once again, the majority of these men seem
to be either utterly indifferent to the Second Amendment or downright adamant in
opposing it.
In rebuking a fellow pastor who decided to raffle a modified AR-15 rifle to
his church congregation in upstate New York, Pastor Willie Bacote, of Missing
Link AME Zion Church in Troy, said, “The fact a church would offer some type of
weapon to anyone strikes me as ludicrous and goes against everything the Bible
teaches. The only thing we’re supposed to arm citizens with is the word of God,
not guns.”
See the report here:
New
York Pastor's Sunday Service Assault Rifle Giveaway Draws
Controversy
Believe me: Rev. Bacote speaks for a host of America’s
pastors--probably a majority. When President Obama and Senator Dianne Feinstein
introduced their national gun ban bill last year, what did the vast majority of
America’s pastors do? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! They said nothing; they did
nothing. If it was left up to them, the American people would have lost the
right to keep and bear arms years ago.
Once again, I want to appeal to readers to purchase the book that my attorney
son and I wrote entitled, “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not
Give Up Their Guns.” This is an in-depth scriptural study of the Biblical,
Natural Law principle of the right and duty of self-defense. Order it
here:Keep Your ArmsHad the Colonial pastors in 1775 and 1776 (and years before) shared the
convictions of the majority of today’s pastors, we would still be a subjugated
colony of the British Crown. And that is a fact.To me, no freedom-loving
Christian who cherishes the liberties bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers,
including the right to keep and bear arms, should maintain fellowship with a
church whose pastor will allow the members of his congregation to be stripped of
their God-given right of self-defense.I would no more support a pastor who will
not protect my right to keep and bear arms than I would support a politician who
will not protect my right to keep and bear arms. Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history.
It is time that those of us who truly love freedom stop supporting those men and
women who are working--either positively or passively--for those forces that
seek to strip us of our lawful means of self-defense.
We should cast no vote
for any political candidate who will not defend the Second Amendment. I don’t
care what political party he or she represents. Unless it is a matter of life or
death, we should not support a physician that would seek to deny us the right to
keep and bear arms. We should be eternally vigilant against the growing
propensity of policemen to become abusive and tyrannical by aggressively
lobbying our elected representatives, mayors, governors, judges, etc., in
demanding that our peace officers submit to the Constitution and show due
respect to the citizens they serve.And we should not support those pastors and
ministers who refuse to be a watchman on the wall for our God-given
liberties--including the right to keep and bear arms.
If we are going to maintain our freedom, all must participate. And that means
our civil magistrates, our doctors, our peace officers, and our pastors. And,
yes, it means you and me, too.

“AMERICAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS RECEIVES MANY LETTERS FROM MILITARY MEMBERS-ACTIVE DUTY AS WELL AS RETIRED VETERANS FROM ALL BRANCHES EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AMERICA AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. WE FEEL IT IS OUR DUTY TO RELEASE SOME OF THESE LETTERS TO THE PUBLIC AND TRUST YOU WILL FIND THIS VERY INTERESTING.”

To: Connecticut, DC, and the United States of America From: An American, a patriot, and a former US Marine.

I think you need to hear a bit of a history lesson. I think you need to hear something about the men and women of the United States military. I think you need to rethink some things about current events.

Our nation was born of rebellion. Brave men stood up and pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause. The cause of rebellion. The cause of throwing off the yoke of tyranny and oppression. Why did they make this oath? They told King George, and the world why, in the declaration they signed. The Declaration of Independence stated that men were born free, endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights.That ultimate liberty was the inherent state of man -government didn’t give them rights, and could not rightly take them away.On the contrary, the power of the government was only by the consent of those being governed. They stated that King George had committed numerous abuses and usurpations of power that made it their “sacred duty” to “Throw off the yoke of his government, and create for themselves their own.” They listed 21 of those “abuses and usurpations”, and now our own government commits at least 16 of them on a regular basis. Our government, like King George, usurps power that is not their own. Presidents pass “executive orders” and pretend that they are law. It used to be a few, 2 or 3 in a term, but George W. Bush passed 63 of them in 8 years. Barack Obama has been in office less than 6, and has passed over a thousand.The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret, not pass laws. They are specifically forbidden to legislate from the bench. But they do it on a regular basis. 16 of 21 abuses and usurpations that King George was accused of, our government does daily. The founding fathers wrote a Constitution for us, to be the highest law of the land. It does not give rights, for freedom is the natural state of man. It guarantees them. It exists to hold government in check. To protect the people from the government. Not one colony would ratify the Constitution until it did list some specific rights of the people, and decree that the United States government could never infringe on those rights. And so we got the first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights. Out of those 10, our government completely ignores at least 6 of them.Our elected officials think that they are our rulers, not our representatives. But that’s ok. The founders saw that coming. They accounted for it. They put right there in the Constitution that it is the right of the American people to dissolve their government and start over any time they deem it necessary. And the second right they listed that government can not take away is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, they intended for American citizens to be armed. George Washington said that the American people should be armed, “and not only armed and equipped, but should be trained, and have sufficient ammunition available to protect themselves from any who would attempt to abuse them. This includes their own government.” They absolutely saw it coming. Thomas Jefferson said that “The Tree of Liberty must needs be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Ben Franklin said that “Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God.” He even wanted to put that phrase on the official United States seal! He wanted to give us a reminder. When a young man or woman enlists in the service of the US military, he or she raises his/her right hand before God and men and swears an oath. “I (state your name), do hereby solemnly swear (or affirm), to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same”…. Think about that for a moment – millions of people, all of our military and veterans, swore an oath to “defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. Against ALL ENEMIES, foreign AND DOMESTIC. We didn’t swear to uphold a political party, or a political system, and we definitely didn’t swear to defend any certain elected position. Our oath was not to government, but to the Constitution. It is our “sacred duty” to defend our Constitution-

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Several situations are in play that could launch a crisis in America, the likes of which have never been seen. Exacerbated by Russian/American relations, the Ukraine, and a poor excuse of a president (and that's being generous), any number of things could end life as we know it rather quickly. Mark Sprenger of www.lighthouseready.org joins us to talk preparedness.